Effects of Multifaceted Street Art on Price Premium of Pre War Commercial Buildings: The Case of Georgetown UNESCO World Heritage Site
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The manuscript titled " Effects of Street Arts on the Price Premium of Heritage Prewar Shophouses in George Town, Penang: Hedonic Regression Models" intends to examine the association between prices of the prewar shophouse and street art to improve the level of understanding among real estate professionals on the heritage market. Moreover, the study had deployed 4 hedonic models to assess the street art effect in response to the prices of heritage properties. The study area was the Georgetown, Penang in Malaysia.
The manuscript has been revised according to the first and second review comments. The authors carefully studied the comments and revised the manuscript by considering all the last comments. The comments are responded to the new manuscript. I appreciate that the title should conform to the template and use lower case letters, but these will be fixed in the process of proof reading. I believe the revised manuscript has been improved carefully and I hope the desired level of Land can be reached.
Author Response
Reviewer 1’s Comments:
- The manuscript has been revised according to the first and second review comments. The authors carefully studied the comments and revised the manuscript by considering all the last comments. The comments are responded to the new manuscript. I appreciate that the title should conform to the template and use lower case letters, but these will be fixed in the process of proof reading. I believe the revised manuscript has been improved carefully and I hope the desired level of Land can be reached.
Authors’ Responses:
- Thank you very much for comments. We have fixed the title in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
I have no further comments on this version of the paper. Comparing this with the previous submission, I find that limitations are still only cursorily addressed.
The authors need to properly address the issues raised in the review to their original submission and in particular pay attention to a full disclosure and discussions of the limitations. 'Palming them off' to be addressed in future work is inadequate
Author Response
Reviewer 2’s Comments:
- I have no further comments on this version of the paper. Comparing this with the previous submission, I find that limitations are still only cursorily addressed. The authors need to properly address the issues raised in the review to their original submission and in particular pay attention to a full disclosure and discussions of the limitations. 'Palming them off' to be addressed in future work is inadequate
Authors’ Responses:
- We apologise for the previous unsatisfactory revision which was not able to meet the requirement of the reviewer.
Apart from other matters which have been sufficiently addressed in the previous review, such as aesthethic value which has been changed to amenity value, description of street art as cultural innovation as well as taking into account of building conditions (part of the analytical model) and architectural dimensions effect on shophouse prices, in order to address specifically Reviewer 2’s comments on the limitations which have been deemed cursorily addressed and are palmed off to be addressed in the future work, we decided to step by step explain our revisions made with respect to this matter.
Firstly, we do not agree with Reviewer’s views that the limitations have been cursorily addressed. In fact, two prominent limitations highlighted by Reviewer 2 have been successfully addressed.
Based on the revision record, initially, these there were 2 prominent limitations stated in the conclusion and were suggested to be investigated further in the future work but after Reviewer 2’s suggestions, we have amended the paper substantially where data recollection, new analysis and models have been added too in this revised manuscript.
On the 1st limitation which is about whether type of street art (in this case referring to sculpture and mural painting) is associated with the price of shophouses. The new model (see Model 4b- Table 9) show that statistically, the effect of murals is not consistent in explaining the impact of murals on the price premium of prewar shophouses. Unlike mural painting, sculpture is directly related to the price of pre-war houses. The coefficient of Post_Street_Art_S in radii of 100m, 500m and 1000m is 0.0832, 0.0162 and 0.0074, respectively. In other words, an additional sculpture could add 8.32% to the pre-war house when the number of sculptures within 100m of transaction objects is measured. (see detailed explanation of this result in Line 560-584).
Secondly, based on the review report (round 2) of Reviewer 2 (dated 28th January 2023), the fourth point was about the pricing of heritage shopfront buildings with art attached to them vs building in the neighbourhood that do not have art directly attached. As such, instead of excluding this part and explaining it in the conclusion as a limitation, in this revised manuscript, we have included another model (see Table 10, Line 586-606) to examine whether or not there is a significant difference in terms of prices between shophouses fronting street art and shophouses that street art is not directly visible (located at the back of the building). This issue is about the locations and visibility of street art. Based on the result, under the post model (i.e., full implementation of street art, in line with Model 4b), only the sculptures could make a positive contribution to the price premium if they were placed in front of the buildings. The result is that each additional unit of sculpture installed in front of a pre-war commercial building increases the price premium of the building by 1.13% compared to the buildings that the street art is directly visible (or located at the back of the buildings). Please see the full explanation in Table 10, Line 590-606).
On the 3rd potential limitation (based on the 28th January 2023 review) in which we have asked for further clarification from the Reviewer but to date we did not receive any feedback, and we hope the reviewer can shed light on this issue. Reviewer highlighted on the issue that heritage assets and historic neighbourhoods are subject to stricter planning controls and therefore are far less likely to see undesirable change, which is valued by some owners. Based on this comment, we agreed fully with the reviewer but we are still unclear of what the reviewer expects from us since we have also responded this part as limitations in the conclusion as:
“Although the study's models suggest that sculpture can generally contribute to better property values, this study does not conclude that more street art should be installed in the Georgetown Historic Preservation Area. This is due to the provisions of the World Heritage Site Special Area Plan UNESCO [39], which requires property owners to obtain local agency approval for any enhancement or installation of street art or redevelopment of landmarked pre-war storefronts. Therefore, to confirm and corroborate this study’s findings of the price effects of multifaceted street art, future studies should also include other historic (UNESCO recognized) cities of Malaysia, such as Malacca City. In addition, it would be interesting that future research can investigate whether street art effects are significant on property prices (encompassing both housing and commercial buildings) in other historic (non world heritage status) cities or any contemporary cities such as Kuching in Sarawak State and Tai Ping, in Perak State with less stringent planning and development controls …”
We have to accept the fact that this study is not without any limitations as this is considered as the 1st local study researching the price effects of street art on commercial buildings within the UNESCO heritage site. Besides, we have also revised our conclusion by elaborating our limitations and future studies (see line 691-737):
“In terms of practical significance, street art is integrated as part of the identity of the historic city and should be preserved by the government and the public. This is because street art creates not only intangible value, but also tangible value for the public and owners, as stated in this study. In addition, this study also contributed to the findings on the amenity value and social value of street art, especially sculptures, on the price premium of real estate, apart from the surrounding environment [27, 29] and cultural and heritage elements [34, 33]. According to Pozzo et al. on the definition of cultural innovation, street art in George Town can be considered as cultural innovation if it improves social well-being by creatively, reflectively and inclusively processing the content of cultural heritage charged with beauty [49]. Street art also plays an important role in urban regeneration by transforming public spaces [50]. For example, in Philadelphia, USA, 3,000 murals and artworks have been created in public spaces. This city has more than 12,000 visitors who explore the uniqueness of the street art works [51]. In George Town, street art takes the form of a mural or sculpture and conveys the cultural messages of the local context. It also promotes local tourism as most people take the opportunity to pose with the mural or sculpture and share it on social media. This phenomenon will attract more people to visit the street art and stimulate customer traffic in the commercial area. The price change of prewar shophouses in response to the number of street art pieces could be one of the factors to consider when evaluating historic preservation properties or investing in prewar shophouses in the future. This empirical study is important for quantifying the value of street art through mathematical formulas. It provides real estate professionals with insight into the price premium of street art to support the market value of pre-war shophouses in George Town Penang.
Nevertheless, this study only focuses on the effect of street art at the regional level. In a future study, the geographically weighted regression (GWR) can be used to examine the street art geographical effect for each location in the historic city. This is to ensure that the effect of street art in George Town, Penang is generally applicable. The existing models have measured the effect of street art primarily based on its quantity (number) in the surrounding pre-war houses, the type, and the location (visibility) of the street art. Although the study's models suggest that sculpture can generally contribute to better property values, this study does not conclude that more street art should be installed in the Georgetown Historic Preservation Area. This is due to the provisions of the World Heritage Site Special Area Plan UNESCO [39], which requires property owners to obtain local agency approval for any enhancement or installation of street art or redevelopment of landmarked pre-war storefronts. Therefore, to confirm and corroborate this study’s findings of the price effects of multifaceted street art, future studies should also include other historic (UNESCO recognized) cities of Malaysia, such as Malacca City. In addition, it would be interesting that future research can investigate whether street art effects are significant on property prices (encompassing both housing and commercial buildings) in other historic (non-World Heritage status) cities or any contemporary cities such as Kuching in Sarawak State and Tai Ping, in Perak State with less stringent planning and development controls. With the aforementioned suggestions, the study’s findings would be even more convincing and useful to policymakers, urban managers and property investors to consider the installation of street art if more empirical findings demonstrate the positive economic effects as well as potential social and health benefits of street art. Other factors namely architectural elements of the listed buildings such as façade, style and interior designs to examine the marginal contribution of these elements to the price premium of pre-war shophouses are also worth to be further studied.”
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
I have no further comments on the manuscript
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript titled "EFFECTS OF STREET ARTS ON THE PRICE PREMIUM OF HERITAGE PREWAR SHOPHOUSES IN GEORGE TOWN, PENANG: HEDONIC REGRESSION MODELS" intends to examine the association between prices of the prewar shophouse and street art to improve the level of understanding among real estate professionals on the heritage market. Moreover, the study had deployed 4 hedonic models to assess the street art effect in response to the prices of heritage properties. The study area was the Georgetown, Penang in Malaysia. It is recommended to say something about the study area (a paragraph or two, a presentation map e.tc.).
The research is original; it could be characterized as novel and in my opinion important to the field, it also has an almost appropriate structure, and the language has been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has a quite nice extent (about 6750 words), and it is comprehensive. The tables (7) and figures (3) make the paper reflect well to the reader. For this reason, paper has a "diversity look", not only tables, not only numbers, not only words. The figure 3.1 must be smaller and continue using vertical orientation page. The table 3.1 must be in the appendix.
Please use the appropriate style for heading chapters – subchapters and number them, figure captions and the appropriate Table captions & footers and numbered them continuously (https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot).
Please, revise the line 1 - not the title - and put the type of the Paper (Article, Review, Communication, etc.), as you can see in the template (see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot).
The title, I think, is all right, but does not have the appropriate style. The abstract reflects well the findings of this study.
Also use the appropriate research manuscript sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions, as journal wants (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions).
The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized but it wasn’t introduced and put into perspective what research is negotiating. Moreover, it does not contain a clear formulation and description of the research problem. Please insert a clear description and justification of the problem the article deals with. Your literature research should be critical and more informed, rather than listing previous research. This section requires significant improvement, and you can increase here, the number of references.
For the Methodology chapter, the research conduct has been tested in several areas of the world, with comparable results and will probably be tested in others. Appropriate references to the methodology included in the already published bibliography but you can put more references, from all over the world. Do not forget, the journal “Land” is international.
The results section is good. The argument flows and is reinforced through the justification of the way elements are interpreted. But the same does not apply to the Discussion and Conclusion. It is advised to revise the Discussion and Conclusion. Both sections should be consistent in terms of Proposal, Problem statement, Results, and of course, future work. Your conclusion section does not do justice to your work. Make your key contributions, arguments, and findings clearer. You must refer to the literature and previous studies in your discussion section.
More discussion is needed, comparing the results of this work related to attributes with those of other studies. I believe that the conclusions section or discussion should also include the main limitations of this study and incorporate possible policy implications as you did. I think, something more should be said about practical implications.
Please revise the manuscript and include more references which already exist in the bibliography. I would be much more satisfied if the number of references was higher (about 50 - 60 references) and I would appreciate it if it also included data from all the world Asia, America, Europe, or Australia. In this way it is documented that a method that is tested in a place with its own characteristics can be implemented in other places around the world.
Please revise the references of the manuscript and include references which are already exists in bibliography. References must have an appropriate style, for this reason I would be good to change [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation / Back Matter / References: - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions or https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references)]. Do not forget, DOI numbers (Digital Object Identifier) are not mandatory but highly encouraged and make the review easier. In the manuscript you do not use numbers. References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text and listed individually at the end of the manuscript.
Please fill in the subchapters accordingly as: Author Contributions, Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement, Acknowledgments and Conflicts of Interest, according to the instructions of the International Journal Land [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation/ Back Matter - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot)].
Delete the lines 577 – 587, these are instructions. Move lines 638-640 before the references.
The reference 6. "Corrigan, J.R. and Egan, K.J. (no date) Aesthetic Values of Lakes and Rivers" is a working paper and the year is 2007. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/kenwpaper/0701.htm
Author Response
Dear Editors
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “Effects Of Street Arts On The Price Premium Of Heritage Prewar Shophouses In George Town, Penang: Hedonic Regression Models” to Land MDPI. We appreciate the time and effort that you and reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most if not all of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. The changes were marked up with the “red color” highlights for your ease of reference.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The manuscript titled "EFFECTS OF STREET ARTS ON THE PRICE PREMIUM OF HERITAGE PREWAR SHOPHOUSES IN GEORGE TOWN, PENANG: HEDONIC REGRESSION MODELS" intends to examine the association between prices of the prewar shophouse and street art to improve the level of understanding among real estate professionals on the heritage market. Moreover, the study had deployed 4 hedonic models to assess the street art effect in response to the prices of heritage properties. The study area was the Georgetown, Penang in Malaysia. It is recommended to say something about the study area (a paragraph or two, a presentation map e.tc.).
Response 1: Thank you for showing interest in our paper. The study area has been improved (please refer to Figure 3 and Figure 4). A new paragraph about the study area has been inserted :
“The location of street arts (sculpture and mural) in George Town is plotted using QGIS as shown in Figure 3. Besides, the number of sculptures and murals in the surrounding transacted heritage prewar shophouses in the radius of 100m, 500m and 1000m is also indicated in Figure 4” (see line 235 – 258)
Point 2: The research is original; it could be characterized as novel and in my opinion important to the field, it also has an almost appropriate structure, and the language has been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has a quite nice extent (about 6750 words), and it is comprehensive. The tables (7) and figures (3) make the paper reflect well to the reader. For this reason, paper has a "diversity look", not only tables, not only numbers, not only words. The figure 3.1 must be smaller and continue using vertical orientation page. The table 3.1 must be in the appendix.
Response 2: The comments are well noted. We have made the map smaller with a vertical orientation page. However, we think it is alright to remain table 3.1 in the main content because it is related to the above map.
Point 3: Please use the appropriate style for heading chapters – subchapters and number them, figure captions and the appropriate Table captions & footers and numbered them continuously (https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot).
Response 3: The comments are well noted. We have incorporated the above comments in the paper.
Point 4: Please, revise the line 1 - not the title - and put the type of the Paper (Article, Review, Communication, etc.), as you can see in the template (see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot).
Response 4: The comments are well noted. We have incorporated the above comments in the paper. (see line 1)
Point 4: The title, I think, is all right, but does not have the appropriate style. The abstract reflects well the findings of this study.
Also use the appropriate research manuscript sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions, as journal wants (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions).
Response 4: The comments are well noted. We have incorporated the above comments in the paper.
Point 5: The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized but it wasn’t introduced and put into perspective what research is negotiating. Moreover, it does not contain a clear formulation and description of the research problem. Please insert a clear description and justification of the problem the article deals with. Your literature research should be critical and more informed, rather than listing previous research. This section requires significant improvement, and you can increase here, the number of references.
‘
Response 5: The comments are well noted. We have incorporated the above comment by adding a paragraph to strengthen the research problems. “This study is crucial to examine the economic value of street art before the current street art model in George Town can be applied in other heritage cities. Besides looking into the cultural perspective of street art, it needs to ensure that the interest of the landlord is protected because the mural or sculpture will be painted or installed on their properties. The landlord hopes that such street art will not bring a negative impact to their property, especially the property value.”. The literature has been extended too. (see line 57 – 62)
Point 6: For the Methodology chapter, the research conduct has been tested in several areas of the world, with comparable results and will probably be tested in others. Appropriate references to the methodology included in the already published bibliography but you can put more references, from all over the world. Do not forget, the journal “Land” is international.
‘
Response 6: The comments are well noted. We have incorporated the above comments in the paper by adding several more international references (in both literature review and discussion sections). (see the references in line 698)
Point 7: The results section is good. The argument flows and is reinforced through the justification of the way elements are interpreted. But the same does not apply to the Discussion and Conclusion. It is advised to revise the Discussion and Conclusion. Both sections should be consistent in terms of Proposal, Problem statement, Results, and of course, future work. Your conclusion section does not do justice to your work. Make your key contributions, arguments, and findings clearer. You must refer to the literature and previous studies in your discussion section.
More discussion is needed, comparing the results of this work related to attributes with those of other studies. I believe that the conclusions section or discussion should also include the main limitations of this study and incorporate possible policy implications as you did. I think, something more should be said about practical implications.
‘
Response 7: The comments are well noted. We have incorporated the above comments in the paper. A paragraph has been inserted into the conclusion as follows:
“Specifically, the sculpture has a positive effect in response to the price change of prewar shophouses where one additional unit of the sculpture will give about 8.32% premium to a standard unit of prewar shophouse based on 100m radius buffer. The premium deteriorated to 1.62% and 0.74% in the radius of 500m and 1000m respectively. However, the mural effect is not significant as hypothesised in model 4b, and the durability of the mural is questionable. The government may need to revisit the maintenance issue on the mural to unlock its value in the heritage town. It seems that sculpture is more effective in promoting street art in a heritage city. Given the empirical result, street art sculpture can be extended to other heritage cities for bringing value to society and heritage properties.
Street art is appreciated as a social asset to the public. It exists in the form of a mural or sculpture and delivers the cultural messages of the local context. It also promotes local tourism activities where most of the people will take the opportunity to pose with the mural or sculpture and share it on social media. This phenomenon will draw more people to visit the street art and stimulate the customer traffic flow in the commercial area. The price change of prewar shophouses in response to the number of street art could be one of the factors to be considered in the heritage property valuation or investment for prewar shophouses in the future. This empirical study is important in terms of quantifying the value of street art through mathematical formulas rather than based on gut feeling. It provides insight into the price premium of street art for a real estate professional to support the market value of prewar shophouses in George Town Penang.
Nevertheless, this study is only focusing on the street art effect at the regional level. In a future study, the Geographical Weighted Regression can be used to examine the street art effect for each location of the heritage town. It is to ensure that the street art effect is widely applicable in George Town, Penang. Apart from that, the model can be extended by including the architectural elements of the heritage buildings if the sample size is sufficient, to examine the marginal contribution of these elements towards the price premium of prewar shophouses.” (see line 660 – 688)
Point 8: Please revise the manuscript and include more references which already exist in the bibliography. I would be much more satisfied if the number of references was higher (about 50 - 60 references) and I would appreciate it if it also included data from all the world Asia, America, Europe, or Australia. In this way it is documented that a method that is tested in a place with its own characteristics can be implemented in other places around the world..
‘
Response 8: Thank you for the comment. We have added a number of relevant references into the revised paper and we believed that the current number of references are sufficient. (see the references)
Point 9: Please fill in the subchapters accordingly as: Author Contributions, Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement, Acknowledgments and Conflicts of Interest, according to the instructions of the International Journal Land [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation/ Back Matter - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot)].
Delete the lines 577 – 587, these are instructions. Move lines 638-640 before the references.
The reference 6. "Corrigan, J.R. and Egan, K.J. (no date) Aesthetic Values of Lakes and Rivers" is a working paper and the year is 2007. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/kenwpaper/0701.htm
Response 9: Thank you for the comments and suggestions. We have amended accordingly. (see line 716)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of land-2159851
EFFECTS OF STREET ARTS ON THE PRICE PREMIUM OF HERITAGE PREWAR SHOPHOUSES IN GEORGE TOWN, PENANG: HEDONIC REGRESSION MODELS
This is an interesting paper on the relationship between street art, heritage places and the desreabilty of real estate.
The framing section on street art as cultural innovation in communities needs to be substantially expanded and better framed to explain what the paper will and will not do.
Line 53 ff This paragraph needs to provide mor detail on the nature of street imagery and the motivations of the artists. There needs to be context about commissioned street art, authorised street art, tolerated street art and guerrilla art, discussion about the permanency or mutability of the art, a discussion of the heritage concepts and values of such art specifically (e.g. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315548449-15 ) and the issues of public perception of this an artform and the as heritage based on the concept of shifting baselines and mutability of values (eg https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5030105).
Line 61ff needs to be developed better as well. Just ‘throwing in’ some references is not enough. There needs to be more detailed discussion of the relationship between street art and the heritage places it is in. That then can set the scene for the discussion of Georgetown’s Street Art
Line 127 I am concerned about the loose usage of ‘aesthetic value’ This is well defined in documents such as the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter(https://australia.icomos.org/resources/burra-charter-series/ ) and the US Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary-standards-treatment-historic-properties.htm ). What is commingled in the paper are amenity values as well as natural values. This section needs much more academic rigour. The overall messages are fine, but the wording is far too loose
If aesthetic value is to be used as a criterion for desirability, the discussion on property prices MUST disentangle these various manifestations of values and be specific. Another problem is that heritage assets and historic neighbourhoods are stricter planning controls and therefore are far less likely to see undesirable change, which is valued by some owners. So distance to a heritage site does not necessarily imply aesthetic value of the neighbourhood. Also, valuing and living in or nearby to heritage buildings or neighbourhoods has mental health benefits (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/304 )which in turn may influence the decision to purchase property there. In short, this section needs a much more critical and nuanced discussion.
Table 3.1 Are all examples of street art the same type (metal frame) or are some murals? If so, this needs to be differentiated, but in the table and in Figure 3.1.
I am concerned about the seeming oversimplification that would then influence the model.
Also, when looking at street art in relation to a property, are you looking at the street frontage of the building and the art in that street, or does art on a street at the back of a building influence the model
Finally, I cannot see a model that examines the pricing of heritage shopfront buildings with art attached to them vs building in the neighbourhood that do not have art directly attached.
Also, the models assume the stylistic architectural merit of the shopfront buildings to be the same. But are they?
Also:
what are the effects of tenancy arrangement on purchases?
what are the effects of building condition on purchases?
These potential effects have not been examined in the models. I am concerned that the modelling relies on an oversimplistic spatial association of street art and property
Author Response
Dear Editors
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “Effects Of Street Arts On The Price Premium Of Heritage Prewar Shophouses In George Town, Penang: Hedonic Regression Models” to Land MDPI. We appreciate the time and effort that you and reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most if not all of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. The changes were marked up with the “red color” highlights for your ease of reference.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: This is an interesting paper on the relationship between street art, heritage places and the desreabilty of real estate.
Response 1: Thank you for showing interest in our paper.
Point 2: The framing section on street art as cultural innovation in communities needs to be substantially expanded and better framed to explain what the paper will and will not do.
Response 2: The comments are well noted. We have included the limitation of the study in the last paragraph of the paper. (see line 681 – 687)
Point 3: Line 53 ff This paragraph needs to provide mor detail on the nature of street imagery and the motivations of the artists. There needs to be context about commissioned street art, authorised street art, tolerated street art and guerrilla art, discussion about the permanency or mutability of the art, a discussion of the heritage concepts and values of such art specifically (e.g. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315548449-15 ) and the issues of public perception of this an artform and the as heritage based on the concept of shifting baselines and mutability of values (eg https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5030105).
Response 3: The comments are well noted. We have added more elaboration according to the suggestions as follows:
“However, street art could be labelled as graffiti or guerilla art if the authorization is not granted by the government. For example in Europe or the USA (Blanché, 2015). Baumgarth and Wieker (2020) claimed that graffiti is perceived as vandalism and daub in public places. Graffiti vandalism is a crime punishable by a jail term, monetary fine or community service in the United States (NYC, 2023). In contrast to graffiti, commissioned street art obtains the consent of the property owner and local authority. This type of street art usually remains untouched/unaltered and therefore it would create a positive effect on the urban landscape. According to Tarihi, Kızılkan and Ocakçı (2020), the commissioned street art implemented by the local authority which had enhanced and enriched the physical and social spaces. As the public appreciated the street art to be part of the community in the city, the aesthetic value is created and transformed into economic value in terms of promoting tourism activities. (Flessas & Mulcahy, 2018).
A historical town carries collective social experience and memory which recognized the nature of different cultures and places. The past beliefs and values are the elements contributing to the uniqueness of the historical building. It expresses the particular culture and reflection of national identity. The social value provides a spiritual and traditional linkage between past and presents together with the essential community function that develops into an attachment (Gibson and Pendlebury, 2009).” ( see line 71 -80)
Point 4: Line 61ff needs to be developed better as well. Just ‘throwing in’ some references is not enough. There needs to be a more detailed discussion of the relationship between street art and the heritage places it is in. That then can set the scene for the discussion of Georgetown’s Street Art.
Response 4: The comments are well noted. We have added more elaboration according to the suggestions as follows:
“Cercleux (2022) conducted a study to examine the effects of street art in making visible culture and heritage in the cities, the results show that street art related to the grey image of the socialist blocs brings promotion for tourism purposes, especially the places in the city centre. In comparison to graffiti, street art allows a clearer and more meaningful message about culture, history and heritage. TCC (2017) also claimed that the town city council had been encouraging public art for cultural tourism, to reactivate the low-rise Central Business District (CBD) with heritage buildings. William (2013) mentioned that UNESCO had begun to consider street art as one of the items of cultural heritage which was assessed by the value-based approach. In recent years, street art has gained attention from the public in the heritage landscape. This phenomenon could be contributed due to the shifting baseline syndrome concerning heritage sites, the expectation on the heritage site is mutable from the past until the present generation (Spennemann, 2022).” (see line 91 – 102)
Point 5: Line 127 I am concerned about the loose usage of ‘aesthetic value’ This is well defined in documents such as the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter(https://australia.icomos.org/resources/burra-charter-series/ ) and the US Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary-standards-treatment-historic-properties.htm ). What is commingled in the paper are amenity values as well as natural values. This section needs much more academic rigour. The overall messages are fine, but the wording is far too loose
Response 5: The comments are well noted. We agreed the aesthetic value of heritage properties is contributed by many architectural elements, especially the material and design. However, this is not the focus of this paper. This study is mainly to analyse the effect of the high number of street art in influencing the price change of prewar shophouses. We perceive that street art exerts the same characteristics as art, therefore we have included the definition of aesthetic value as follows
“Aesthetic value is present in an artwork or the natural environment, it evokes pleasurable or displeasure reaction when appreciated or experienced aesthetically (Plato and Mesken, 2014).” (see line 162-164)
Point 5: If aesthetic value is to be used as a criterion for desirability, the discussion on property prices MUST disentangle these various manifestations of values and be specific. Another problem is that heritage assets and historic neighbourhoods are stricter planning controls and therefore are far less likely to see undesirable change, which is valued by some owners. So distance to a heritage site does not necessarily imply aesthetic value of the neighbourhood.
Response 5: The comments are well noted.
We agreed that the aesthetic value needs to be refined into sub-components in response to the price change of prewar shophouses. However, the number of transaction for heritage properties are low. Therefore, the inclusion of more variables (aesthetic components) in the existing model will distort its reliability due to overfitting issues. We believe that the existing control variables are sufficient in supporting the current model because the adjusted R2 in these models are more than 60% and above (see Table 4).
We also agreed that heritage properties in the same locality would not have significant price changes as they shared similar characteristics. However, we treat street art as the new value-added elements in town. As discussed in the previous section, street art can attract local and international tourists for paying a visit to them which subsequently improve the customer traffic flow. Hence, we test the effect of street art based on the number of street art in the surrounding transacted properties instead of the distance between street art and transacted properties. This study expects there is a direct relationship between the number of street art and the price premium of prewar shophouses (see Figure 3 and 4).
Point 6: Also, valuing and living in or nearby to heritage buildings or neighbourhoods has mental health benefits (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/304 )which in turn may influence the decision to purchase property there. In short, this section needs a much more critical and nuanced discussion
Response 6: The comments are well noted. We have added more elaboration according to the suggestions as follows:
“As highlighted by Spennemann (2022), cultural heritage also contributes to the mental health and well-being of individuals and the community at large. William (2013) points out that street art becomes more popular and the UNESCO had considered it part of the cultural heritage. It is one of the value-added elements in cultural heritage by connecting people to places and promoting social cohesion. Hence, property investors might pay a price premium for buying heritage prewar shophouses with more street arts in exchange for a strong cultural image location.” (see line 208 – 214)
Point 7: Table 3.1 Are all examples of street art the same type (metal frame) or are some murals? If so, this needs to be differentiated, but in the table and in Figure 3.1.
Response 7: The comments are well noted. We have added more analysis to differentiate the street art effect based on sculpture and mural. The analysis can be found in Figure 3, Figure 4, Table 7 and 9.
Point 8: I am concerned about the seeming oversimplification that would then influence the model.
Also, when looking at street art in relation to a property, are you looking at the street frontage of the building and the art in that street, or does art on a street at the back of a building influence the model
Finally, I cannot see a model that examines the pricing of heritage shopfront buildings with art attached to them vs building in the neighbourhood that do not have art directly attached.
Response 8: The comments are well noted. The street art either murals or sculptures are placed randomly in heritage towns. For example, at the back lane or corner of the buildings. We understand that the visibility of street art could be one of the factors influencing the price. However, this location can be easily found by the public via technology such as Google Maps or websites. Therefore, the location of street art is expected to have a very minimal impact on the price change of heritage properties. We appreciate your comments and they will be considered in future studies.
Additionally, this model has systematically calculated the number of murals and sculptures based on the 100m, 500m and 1000m radii buffer. Figure 3.2 shows that there is no street art in some heritage properties based on the respective buffer. The regression techniques adopted will calculate the price change in response to the number of street art and such change will report in the coefficient of respective variables such as Post_Street_Art_S or Post_Street_Art_M. For instance, there is one section mentioning “ one additional unit of sculpture could contribute 8.32% to the prewar shophouse if the number of sculpture is measured within 100m of transaction properties and so on.” (see line 570 – 572)
Point 9: Also, the models assume the stylistic architectural merit of the shopfront buildings to be the same. But are they?
Also:
what are the effects of tenancy arrangement on purchases?
what are the effects of building condition on purchases?
These potential effects have not been examined in the models. I am concerned that the modelling relies on an oversimplistic spatial association of street art and property
Response 9: The architectural style of the shopfront buildings are quite similar. Thus, these characteristics are not taken into the consideration. Additionally, most of the prewar shophouses have to be refurbished before they can be used for commercial purposes. In our point of view, it would not significantly affect the current model. However, we suggest including the architectural elements in the future study.
The tenancy arrangement is not considered in the models because it gives less impact on the price of heritage properties. The supply of prewar shophouses is limited in George Town, Penang. Therefore, it is not difficult for the owners to secure tenants for their properties. The building condition is considered in every model listed in the paper. According to Table 3, there are 26.5% of prewar shophouses with good condition, followed by 49.3% and 24.2% of prewar shophouses with average and poor condition respectively. According to the OLS Regression Results, the building condition has a positive relationship with the price of prewar shophouses. (see line 478 – 481).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript titled " Effects of Street Arts on the Price Premium of Heritage Prewar Shophouses in George Town, Penang: Hedonic Regression Models" intends to examine the association between prices of the prewar shophouse and street art to improve the level of understanding among real estate professionals on the heritage market. Moreover, the study had deployed 4 hedonic models to assess the street art effect in response to the prices of heritage properties. The study area was the Georgetown, Penang in Malaysia.
The manuscript has been revised according to the first review comments. The authors carefully studied the comments and revised the manuscript by considering most of the comments. The comments are responded to the new manuscript. I believe the revised manuscript has been improved carefully and I hope the desired level of Land can be reached if the authors carefully develop the references.
Conclusions and discussion are better than the previous one, they have general logic and on justification of interpretations as the author’s attribute.
In general, the manuscript is completely different from the previous one since most of the comments of the previous review have been revised.
But the following have not been satisfactorily developed:
1. Include more references which already exist in the bibliography. I would be much more satisfied if the number of references was higher (about 50 - 60 references, you have 39) and I would appreciate it if it also included data from all the world Asia, America, Europe, or Australia. In this way it is documented that a method that is tested in a place with its own characteristics can be implemented in other places around the world.
2. References must have an appropriate style, for this reason I would be good to change [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation / Back Matter / References: - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions or https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references)]. Do not forget, DOI numbers (Digital Object Identifier) are not mandatory but highly encouraged and make the review easier. In the manuscript you do not use numbers. References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text and listed individually at the end of the manuscript.
For these reasons, the desired level of Land cannot be reached at the moment.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The manuscript titled " Effects of Street Arts on the Price Premium of Heritage Prewar Shophouses in George Town, Penang: Hedonic Regression Models" intends to examine the association between prices of the prewar shophouse and street art to improve the level of understanding among real estate professionals on the heritage market. Moreover, the study had deployed 4 hedonic models to assess the street art effect in response to the prices of heritage properties. The study area was the Georgetown, Penang in Malaysia.
The manuscript has been revised according to the first review comments. The authors carefully studied the comments and revised the manuscript by considering most of the comments. The comments are responded to the new manuscript. I believe the revised manuscript has been improved carefully and I hope the desired level of Land can be reached if the authors carefully develop the references.
Conclusions and discussion are better than the previous one, they have general logic and on justification of interpretations as the author’s attribute.
In general, the manuscript is completely different from the previous one since most of the comments of the previous review have been revised.
Response 1: Thank you for showing interest in our paper. Your comments are well noted.
Point 2: Include more references which already exist in the bibliography. I would be much more satisfied if the number of references was higher (about 50 - 60 references, you have 39) and I would appreciate it if it also included data from all the world Asia, America, Europe, or Australia. In this way it is documented that a method that is tested in a place with its own characteristics can be implemented in other places around the world.
Response 2: The comments are well noted. We have added new references from all the world Asia, America, Europe or Australia. Now, the paper has 51 references in total.
Point 3: References must have an appropriate style, for this reason I would be good to change [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation / Back Matter / References: - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions or https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references)]. Do not forget, DOI numbers (Digital Object Identifier) are not mandatory but highly encouraged and make the review easier. In the manuscript you do not use numbers. References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text and listed individually at the end of the manuscript.
Response 3: The comments are well noted. The references in this paper have been amended to follow the appropriate style required by the journal.
Reviewer 2 Report
Second review of
Effects of Street Arts on the Price Premium of Heritage Prewar Shophouses in George Town, Penang: Hedonic Regression Models
The authors are to be commended for the effort they have put into the revision of the manuscript. A few issues remain, that need to be adequately addressed before the paper can be published.
In my initial review I wrote: The framing section on street art as cultural innovation in communities needs to be substantially expanded and better framed to explain what the paper will and will not do.
To this the authors responded: The comments are well noted. We have included the limitation of the study in the last paragraph of the paper. (see line 681 – 687)
While commenting on the limitations is important, the framing section on street art as cultural innovation in communities still needs to be substantially expanded. The authors have failed to do so.
In my initial review I wrote:
I am concerned about the loose usage of ‘aesthetic value’ This is well defined in documents such as the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter(https://australia.icomos.org/resources/burra-charter-series/ ) and the US Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary-standards-treatment-historic-properties.htm ).
Response 5: The comments are well noted. We agreed the aesthetic value of heritage properties is contributed by many architectural elements, especially the material and design. However, this is not the focus of this paper. This study is mainly to analyse the effect of the high number of street art in influencing the price change of prewar shophouses. We perceive that street art exerts the same characteristics as art, therefore we have included the definition of aesthetic value as follows
“Aesthetic value is present in an artwork or the natural environment, it evokes pleasurable or displeasure reaction when appreciated or experienced aesthetically (Plato and Mesken, 2014).” (see line 162-164)
The authors have missed the point . In a heritage discussion and a discussion of historic towns, the term ‘aesthetic value’ has a very specific meaning and that is not the meaning as defined by Plato and Mesken. It is IMPERATIVE that the terminology used by the authors follows the conventions of the cultural heritage management profession. Otherwise it will lead to confusion and will also result in the worthwhile paper not being as well cited as it deserves.
In my review I commented on the issue that heritage assets and historic neighbourhoods are stricter planning controls and therefore are far less likely to see undesirable change, which is valued by some owners.
The authors have tried to comment of this but have evaded the issue. I would be desirable that this aspect be addressed as a limitationudy
In my review I commented on the issue that I cannot see a model that examines the pricing of heritage shopfront buildings with art attached to them vs building in the neighbourhood that do not have art directly attached
Again authors have tried to comment of this but have evaded the issue. I would be desirable that this aspect be addressed as a limitation of the study
The paper needs to undergo a serious and deep-level edit by a professional native-English speaking editor
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: In my initial review I wrote: The framing section on street art as cultural innovation in communities needs to be substantially expanded and better framed to explain what the paper will and will not do.
To this the authors responded: The comments are well noted. We have included the limitation of the study in the last paragraph of the paper. (see line 681 – 687)
While commenting on the limitations is important, the framing section on street art as cultural innovation in communities still needs to be substantially expanded. The authors have failed to do so.
Response 1: The comments are well noted. We have expanded the term ‘cultural innovation’ in line 669 – 674, where it improves social welfare by creatively processing beauty-laden heritage content reflectively and inclusively. Besides, this study also claimed that street art plays the important role in regenerating the urban public space, especially in terms of promoting tourism activities (examples are provided in the study).
Point 2: The comments are well noted. We agreed the aesthetic value of heritage properties is contributed by many architectural elements, especially the material and design. However, this is not the focus of this paper. This study is mainly to analyse the effect of the high number of street art in influencing the price change of prewar shophouses. We perceive that street art exerts the same characteristics as art, therefore we have included the definition of aesthetic value as follows
“Aesthetic value is present in an artwork or the natural environment, it evokes pleasurable or displeasure reaction when appreciated or experienced aesthetically (Plato and Mesken, 2014).” (see line 162-164)
The authors have missed the point . In a heritage discussion and a discussion of historic towns, the term ‘aesthetic value’ has a very specific meaning and that is not the meaning as defined by Plato and Mesken. It is IMPERATIVE that the terminology used by the authors follows the conventions of the cultural heritage management profession. Otherwise it will lead to confusion and will also result in the worthwhile paper not being as well cited as it deserves.
Response 2: The comments are well noted. We have changed the term from “Aesthetic value” to “Amenity value”. The term “Amenity value” is also elaborated in line 160-169.
Point 3: In my review I commented on the issue that heritage assets and historic neighbourhoods are stricter planning controls and therefore are far less likely to see undesirable change, which is valued by some owners.
The authors have tried to comment of this but have evaded the issue. I would be desirable that this aspect be addressed as a limitationudy
Response 3: The comments are well noted. We have included the issues mentioned above in the limitation of study as follows:
“Although the study’s models suggest that sculpture or street art, in general, can contribute to a better price of the property, this study does not implicationally arrive at proposing more street art to be installed within the Georgetown heritage area due to the regulation stipulated under UNESCO World Heritage Site Special Area Plan [39], where the landowners must obtain approval from the local authority for any upgrade or installation of street art or rehabilitation of the heritage prewar shophouses. As such, this necessitates future research to examine how the street art effect could be different in a non-heritage city with less strict planning control.”
Point 4: In my review I commented on the issue that heritage assets and historic neighbourhoods are stricter planning controls and therefore are far less likely to see undesirable change, which is valued by some owners.
The authors have tried to comment of this but have evaded the issue. I would be desirable that this aspect be addressed as a limitationudy
In my review I commented on the issue that I cannot see a model that examines the pricing of heritage shopfront buildings with art attached to them vs building in the neighbourhood that do not have art directly attached
Again authors have tried to comment of this but have evaded the issue. I would be desirable that this aspect be addressed as a limitation of the study
Response 4: The comments are well noted. We have included the issues mentioned above in the limitation of study as follows:
“The existing models only measured the effect of street art based on its quantity in the surrounding prewar shophouses. It did not distinguish the pricing of prewar shophouses with or without street art directly attached to them. This aspect can be considered in the future model which can certainly substantiate the current findings.”
Point 5: The paper needs to undergo a serious and deep-level edit by a professional native-English speaking editor
Response 5: This paper has been proofread and we hope that the language and grammatical wise are fine.
